TexasCHLforum.com

Well, the clerk probably got fired the day of the incident for violating the company weapons policy. He would not have anything worth suing for. I'm actually surprised he wasn't prosecuted. Maybe they figured that being run over was punishment enough.

The company's insurance company got hit where it hurts.

- Jim

Shoplifting is theft, not robbery. Robbery requires the element of force or threat of force.

As I recall, the video showed the guy taking the sunglasses from a display while he was walking out the door. It also looked like it was day time.

But as you say, even if it had been an armed robbery, the clerk was liable for injuring a third party who was not involved in the crime.

- Jim

http://www.khou.com/news/local/houstonm ... 870ad.html

As I read this story, in 2006, Robert Vela was in a convenience store with a friend when a clerk accused the friend of shoplifting sunglasses. The clerk produced a handgun and chased them. They ran to Vela's car. The clerk shot into the car, and Robert drove over the clerk.

In the video, Vela had already left the store and had his back turned when the friend grabbed a pair of sunglasses on the way out.

Now here's the confusing part: The written story says "the passenger" was struck by a bullet. The video says that no one was hit. It seems to me that Vela must have been hit to be in a position to sue. (I can't find any other versions of this story).

Vela and the other man were initially charged with aggravated robbery, but the DA dropped the charges.

Vela subsequently sued the convenience store and was awarded $1.2 million in a jury trial last week.

- Jim